Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity; Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

[MaxMaxwell <nosp@xxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
>> The energy figures tossed about by the
>> tree-huggers would appear to be just as
>> inflated as the life expectancy figures
>> tossed about by the CFL manufacturers.
>
> Or...  You're wrong entirely.  Calling people
> who care about the future of the planet "tree
> huggers" does nothing to further a meritless
> POV.

tree humpers better fo ya

>
>> Furthermore, since many industrial and
>> commercial uses already are using high
>> efficiency lamps there's not a lot to gain
>> by forcing them to use CFLs.
>
> That is an unproven hypothesis.  You have
> way of knowing what percentage of commercial
> and industrial users employ high efficiency
> lighting.


u have no of knowing either, numbnuts

>
>> So, CFLs aren't going to save the planet but
>> may light it so poorly that we won't notice as
>> it ebbs away. :(
>
> CFL's alone won't save the planet.  Neither
> will any one, single technology.  However,
> using high efficiency lighting is one of many
> useful steps we can take to slow the destruction
> of the planet.

the planet will still be here long after u and everyone else is long gone.


>I is patently absurd

I agrees